Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/13/137

Sri. M.V. Raghavendra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Volkswagen Palace Cross, (Bangalore Motors Pvt Ltd) - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Venkatesh R. Bhagat

16 Jun 2016

ORDER

Before the 4th Addl District consumer forum, 1st Floor, B.M.T.C, B-Block, T.T.M.C, Building, K.H. Road, Shantinagar, Bengaluru - 560027
J.N. Havanur, President
 
Complaint Case No. CC/13/137
 
1. Sri. M.V. Raghavendra
S/o. V. Venkataramu, R/a 31,4th Cross, Amarjyouthinagar, Nagarabhavi Road, Vijayanagar, Banaglore-40.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Volkswagen Palace Cross, (Bangalore Motors Pvt Ltd)
Hesaraghatta Road, T. Dasarahalli. Bagalagunte, Bangalore-57. Rep by its Manager
2. 2. Volkswagen Palace Cross, (Bangalore Motors Pvt Ltd)
No 1. Palace Cross, Road, Bangalore-560020) Rep by its Manager.
3. Volkswagen Palace Group Sales India Pvt Ltd
Head Office Bandra East, Level 4, Building No3, North Avenue, Maker Maxity, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. H.S. RAMAKRISHANA PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Sri. D. Suresh MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. N R Roopa MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 16 Jun 2016
Final Order / Judgement

Complaint filed on: 16-01-2013

                                                      Disposed on: 16-06-2016

 

BEFORE THE BENGALURU IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027          

 

 

CC.No.137/2013

DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JUNE 2016

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant: -

                                       

M.V.Raghavendra

S/o. V.Venkataramu,

R/at 31, 4th Cross,

Amajyothinagar,

Nagarabhavi Road,

Bengaluru-40

 

 

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

 

  1. Volkswagen Palace Cross,

                                                    (Bengaluru Motors Pvt. Ltd)

                                                    Hesaraghatta Road,

    T.Dasarahalli, Bagalagunte,

    Bengaluru -57

    Reptd by its Manager

  1. Volkswagen Palace Cross,

(Bengaluru Motors Pvt. Ltd)

No.1, Palace Cross Road,

Bengaluru -20

Reptd by its Manager

  1. Volkswagen Palace Group Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd,

Head office, Bandra East level 4, Building no.3, North Avenue, Maker Maxity, Bandra Kurla complex, Bandra east, Mumbai

Reptd by its Managing Director

 

 

ORDER

 

SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

          This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying to pass an order, directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.61,177=00 purporting to be the price of 3 alloy wheels alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of payment till realization and to replace all four alloy wheels free of cost and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5.00 lakhs towards causing mental agony, financial loss and hardship alongwith cost of litigation.

 

2. In the complaint, the complainant alleges that, the complainant has purchased a Volkswagen Saloon Candy White Jetta 2.0 M/T diesel car from OPs, as per the invoice No.VWPCR/1011/697 on 30-11-2010 by paying Ex-show room price of Rs.16,06,464=00 and also Rs.3,08,409=00 towards road tax, processing and registration charges etc. from 1st OP. As per the terms and conditions contained in the warrantee clause, there is a two years warrantee for the vehicle. This being the case, when the complainant has left the vehicle for servicing on 8-4-2012 within the warrantee period, the OPs have informed the complainant that all the four alloy wheels are having manufacturing defect and promised the complainant to replace the same as it is covered under the warrantee period. However to the shock and surprise of the complainant, the OPs have raised invoice dated 23-6-2012 in No.SIP123270 to the tune of Rs.61,177=00 purporting to be the price of 3 alloy wheels and demanded the same from the complainant. Even though there was manufacturing defect in the alloy wheels, the OPs have constrained the complainant to make payment of the value of the said three alloy wheels and 4th wheel was replaced by stepney wheel. The 1st OP being dealer and the 2nd OP being the service provider having service station for the Volkswagen Vehicle and the 3rd OP being the manufacturer of vehicle have practiced unfair trade practice and delivered sub-standard vehicle to the complainant having defective alloy wheels. Further the OPs forced the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.61,177=00 as per the invoice SIP 123270 dated 23-6-2012 even though fault lies with them. Even though the complainant has complained regarding defect in the alloy wheels as early as on 18-4-2012 as per the repair order No.0120446, the OPs have replaced the said wheel after about 2 months after squeezing the money from the complainant. Again the complainant has left the vehicle for repair for the same problem of wobbling and also as to the manufacturing defect of 4 alloy wheels on 13-9-2012 as per the repair order no.SO014079. Again the OPs asked the complainant to replace all the 4 alloy wheels at the cost of Rs.1,40,000=00. The complainant was stunned to hear that even though there was manufacturing defect in the alloy wheels originally supplied to complainant and also in the replaced alloy wheels, the OPs are illegally demanding money from the complainant. This act on their part of supplying the defective alloy wheels amounts to deficiency of service. The complainant constrained to issue notice dated 16-10-2012 to the OPs calling upon them to replace all four alloy wheels free of cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and also to refund a sum of Rs.61,177=00 with interest at 18% p.a. from 23-6-2012 till its realization with compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs for causing mental agony and hardship to the complainant. On 13-9-20121 the complainant has run the vehicle for only 26853 kms only. Therefore it is a clear cut violation of the warrantee condition and even though on both occasions it is within the warrantee period. The OPs have illegally collected a sum of Rs.61,177=00 from the complainant which is illegal, unethical and against the terms and conditions of the warranty agreement. The OP failed to replace all the four defective alloy wheels with a brand new alloy wheels without having any defect. Further they are also failed to take back the vehicle and refund the cost of the vehicle including registration and other charges paid by the complainant along with compensation Rs.5.00 lakhs for causing mental agony and hardship to the complainant. Hence the present complaint is filed.

 

3. In response to the notice, the OPs no.1 to 3 put their appearance through their counsel. The OPs no.1 and 2 have filed their common version. In the version, they pleaded that, the complaint is baseless, misconceived and bereft of merits. The complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands. As per the terms and conditions contained in the warranty clause there is two years warranty for the vehicle is misleading. Even as per the vehicle hand book, it is clearly mentioned what components of the car is covered under warranty and under certain conditions. However there is no warranty whatsoever for misuse bending of the alloys of the car and the complainant is well aware of the same. The complainant left his vehicle for service on 18-5-2012, the OPs have informed that all 4 alloy wheels are having manufacturing defect and that they promised the complainant that they will replace the same as it is in warranty period is false and thereby denied that the car was left for servicing as well as for the problem of steering wobbling and the complainant was informed that the alloys had sustained damaged/bend due to rash and negligent driving. The question of replacing the alloys free of charge does not arise as there is no warranty for misuse of the alloys and further the complainant was informed that the alloys are damaged due to careless and negligent driving of the complainant and not due to any manufacturing defect as falsely claimed by the complainant. The car had already run 20711 km and the damage has occurred only then which clearly establishes that there was no manufacturing defect which would have arisen in the beginning itself and not after the car running for more than 20,000 kms. Any crack or breakage of an alloy can be attributed to a manufacturing defect, not a bend as in the case of complainant which is due to abuse of the same. The OP has raised an invoice is true as the complainant was required to pay for replacement of the alloys which were damaged due to his own doing and not due to any manufacturing defect. The alloys were replaced on 23-6-2013 as the complainant took that much time to pay the requisite charges, which was his own decision. Even otherwise, assuming that the OPs have taken two months to replace the alloy wheels as falsely contended by the complainant, then there was no necessity or valid reason for the complainant to sign a satisfaction note on 28-4-2012 itself when he took delivery of the car, it is sole decision of the complainant to get the alloy wheels replaced after two months and there has been no delay on the part of these OPs. The car was once again reported to the service station of these OPs on 13-9-2012 with the problem of wobbling is true. However the averment that there was manufacturing defect is false and hereby denied. In fact, the car was brought back after running an additional 6139 kms after the last alloy wheel replacement and the car has run totally 26850 kms. When inspected by the qualified engineers of these OPs, it was found that there was external damage to the alloy wheels which were caused due to heavy impact on the same contributed by rash driving on bad roads. Accordingly the complainant was informed about the solution and charges for the same which he refused to pay, more over these OPs could not offer good will as in the case of the 1st replacement which was a onetime offer. From the forgoing it is clear that the alloy wheels were not damaged solely due to the nature of driving of the complainant and not due to any manufacturing defect nor there has been any deficiency in service as falsely claimed by the complainant.  Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4. The 3rd OP has filed separate version and in his version, he pleaded that, the Volkswagen Vento car delivered to the complainant has passed through stringent quality tests and safety tests as per high quality requirements and safety standards set by Volkswagen and only thereafter has the car been delivered to the Volkswagen authorized dealer i.e. OPs no.1 and 2 for onward sale to the complainant. This forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint in as much as this OP is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this forum. The warranty provided by it is not an absolute warranty and is subject to certain terms and conditions which were explicitly described in the warranty booklet provided to the complainant. Furthermore, the authorized dealer informs that the car was reported to their workshop with the alloy wheels in a bent condition, which is clearly a result of external impact or negligent and rough use of the car with low air pressure in the tyres and therefore the rectification was not covered under warranty. The damage to the vehicle due to an external impact is not covered under the warranty policy of this OP. Therefore dealership raised its invoice for replacement of alloy wheels. However, to keep a good relationship with its customer and to provide the best of possible services to the complainant, this OP provided a discount to the complainant which he accepted and issued a satisfaction note after being completely satisfied with the service provided and the solution offered by the OPs. This OPs denies that there was any defect in the alloy wheel, leave aside a manufacturing defect. The complainant reported the car again to the dealership for rectification of the same problem, which was certainly caused by the negligent and reckless usage of the car by the complainant. The said alloy wheels were again changed and strangely the complainant refused to pay for the same. The time of the complainant in bringing back the car to dealership for repairs, it appears as a premeditated complaint as the manufacturer’s warranty provided by this OP which is valid for a period of two years from the date of purchase of the car was about to the get expired on 29-11-2012. The car was brought in with an ulterior motive of extracting undue benefits of the said warranty policy. Though the alloy wheels are not covered under the applicable warranty policy, he refused to accept any such discount and unreasonably demanded that the alloy wheels must be given to him for free. After providing him the quotation the customer flatly refused to pay the said amount of Rs.1,40,000=00 upon which the representatives of this OP and the said dealership offered him an discount of Rs.7,000=00 as a goodwill gesture which the complainant refused to accept and he took away the said vehicle without getting the alleged bent alloy wheels. The complainant is presently in possession of the car and is using the same. This goes to show that the car is in a roadworthy condition and is being used by the complainant on a regular basis which amply shows that the complainant has leveled false allegations and filed false complaint against the OP. There has not been deficiency in the service rendered to the complainant. The problem faced of bent alloy wheels by the complainant are completely attributed to his negligent and reckless behaviour wherein he has driven the car at a low air pressure in the tyres, hence the complainant is not eligible for any compensation. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5. The complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence. On behalf of the OPs no.1 and 2, the affidavit of one G.S.Prashanth Kumar, has been filed and on behalf of the 3rd OP, the affidavit of one Harshavardhan Jogdand has been filed. Heard the arguments of both parties.

 

6. Now the points that arise for our consideration are:

  1. Whether the complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the OPs?
  2. If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?

 

7. Our findings on the above points are;

          Point no.1: In the Negative

          Point no.2: As per the final order.

 

 

 

 

REASONS

 

8. As looking into the averments of complaint and also version filed by the OPs, it is not in dispute that, the complainant has purchased a Volkswagen Saloon Candy White Jetta 2.0 M/T diesel car from OPs on 30-11-2010 under invoice No.VWPCR/1011/697 by paying Ex-show room price of Rs.16,06,464=00. Further to substantiate this fact, the complainant even in his sworn testimony, reiterated the same and produced the retail invoice, as looking into this invoice, it is discloses that, on 30-11-2010 the complainant has purchased the Volkswagen Saloon Candy White Jetta 2.0 M/T diesel car for ex-showroom price of Rs.16,06,464=00, this evidence has not been denied by the OPs, therefore it is proper to accept the contention of the complainant that, he has purchased the Volkswagen Saloon Candy White Jetta 2.0 M/T diesel car from the OPs no.1 and 2 for ex-showroom price of Rs.16,06,464-00.

 

9. It is further case of complainant that, as per the terms and conditions contained in the warrantee clause, there is a two years warrantee for the vehicle. This being the case, when the complainant has left the vehicle for servicing on 8-4-2012 within the warrantee period, the OPs have informed the complainant that all the four alloy wheels are having manufacturing defect and promised the complainant to replace the same as it is covered under the warrantee period. However to the shock and surprise of the complainant, the OPs have raised invoice dated 23-6-2012 in No.SIP123270 for a sum of Rs.61,177=00 purporting to be the price of 3 alloy wheels and demanded the same from the complainant. But this fact has been denied by the OPs in their version, so it is burden on the complainant to establish the same, to prove this fact, the complainant in his sworn testimony reiterated the same and produced the tax invoice. As looking into this tax invoice, the invoice issued in the name of complainant M.V.Raghavendra, invoice no.SIP123270 dated 23-6-2012 and this invoice with respect to car bearing Reg. No.KA-02-MF576 and model is Jetta 2.0 Comfo 81TDI MSF and repair order dated 18-4-2012 and further it reveals that, this invoice with respect to the replacement of three alloy wheels for that, they charged a sum of Rs.61,177=00. So from this evidence, it is discloses that, when the complainant took his vehicle for repair service on 18-4-2012, the OPs have charged for replacement of three alloy wheels for a sum of Rs.61,177=00, but the complainant has not produced the warranty document to show that, there is two years warranty as alleged by the complainant and produced some articles of the website of Volkswagen Jetta, the vehicle have poor quality of alloy wheels, this obtained from the website of the Volkswagen, but with reference to his vehicle except this the complainant has not produced warranty.

 

10. On the other hand, the defence of OPs are that, the complainant left the car for servicing as well as for the problem of steering wobbling and the complainant has informed that the alloys has sustained damage due to rash and negligent driving. The question of replacing the alloys free of charge does not arise as there is no warranty for misuse /abuse causing damage/bending of the alloys and further the complainant was informed that the alloys are damaged due to careless and negligent driving of the complainant and not due to any manufacturing defect. So the complainant except producing some website articles, he has not pressed any evidence and there is no manufacturing defects. On the other hand, as defence taken by the OPs no.1 to 3 G.S.Prashanth Kumar and Harshavardhan Jogdand have filed their affidavit and in their sworn testimony reiterated the same and also produced the warranty. As looking into the warranty, the warranty will not covered in respect of tyre rotation, wheel alignment and wheel balancing. By looking into the warranty, it is clear damage caused by external factors or insufficient care will not covered under warranty. For that reason, the OP charged Rs.61,177=00 for the replacement three alloy wheel since it is not covered under warranty.

 

11. So from this evidence, it is very clear that, even though as per the warranty, there is two years for new vehicle from the date of purchase, but there are some terms and conditions for that warranty i.e. if any damage is caused by external factors will not covered under warranty and also any damage caused to the tyre and wheels will not covered under warranty for that reason, the OPs have raised invoice for replacement of alloy wheels for a sum of Rs.61,177=00. Further when the complainant brought to the vehicle for service on 18-4-2012, the vehicle has run 24000 kms if it is any manufacturing defects, how the said vehicle is able to run for 24000 kms before completion of two years. Furthermore when the complainant take the delivery of the vehicle on 28-4-2012 he has satisfied with performance of the vehicle except delivery of the same, so in that reasons it is not proper to accept the contention of the complainant that, there is a manufacturing defects in the said vehicle. Further when the complainant brought to the vehicle again for service on 13-9-2012 this evidence by repair order issued by the OPs, it is clearly reveals that, the complainant brought to the vehicle for service and demanded for repair and inspect wheel wobbling but not for replacement alloy wheels as alleged by the complainant, if again wheels alloy were defective in nature that should be mentioned in the repair order issued by the OPs, but it is not so when looking into the same and also the complainant except the interested version that the OPs have raised invoice of Rs.1,40,000=00 for replacement of 4 alloy wheels absolutely there is no evidence. Therefore, it is not proper to accept the contention of complainant. So the complainant has failed to prove that there is deficiency of service by OPs, if really there is manufacturing defects and the OPs have failed to rectify the same then only the complainant is entitled claim relief, but in this case, the complainant has utterly failed to prove this, there is manufacturing defects and if there is any bend in alloy wheels. To substantiate this fact they have produced material, but as evidence placed by the complainant absolutely there is no evidence to believe that there is bend in alloy wheels and further the complainant also failed to prove bending alloy wheel is manufacturing defect and it is covered in the warranty, thereby the complainant has failed to prove that there is deficiency in service of OPs no.1 to 3 and OPs no.1 to 3 have adopting unfair trade practice. Hence we answered these points in the negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint is dismissed. No costs.

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties.  

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 16th day of June 2016).

 

 

 

MEMBER                   MEMBER                   PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

 

1.     Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

M.V.Raghavendra, who being the complainant was examined.

2.     Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:-

          1. Retail invoice dated 30-11-2010

          2. Debit note dated 9-12-2010

          3. Tax invoice dated 23-6-2012

          4. Repair order dated 13-8-2012

          5. Tax invoice dated 13-8-2012

          6. Legal notice of complainant dated 16-10-2012

 

3.     Witness examined on behalf of the OPs by way of affidavit:

1. G.S.Prashanth Kumar, who being the OPs no.1 and 2 was examined.

2. Harshavardhan Jogdand, who being the 3rd OP was examined

 

4.     Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:-

          1. Satisfaction note

          2. Warranty terms

 

 

 

MEMBER                   MEMBER                   PRESIDENT

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. H.S. RAMAKRISHANA]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sri. D. Suresh]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. N R Roopa]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.