D.O.F:09/11/2020

                                                                                                       D.O.O:20/04/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.147/2020

Dated this, the 20^th day of April 2023

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                          : PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M   : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                          : MEMBER

Mohammed Pareri,

S/o Moideen Kutty Haji,

Pareri House,

Paivalike P.O,                                                                     : Complainant

Kasaragod, Kerala- 671348

(Adv. K.K. Mohammed Shafi)

                              And

1. Volkswagen Service Centre (Mangalore),

Volkswagen Mangalore,

NH 48 Bangalore-Mangalore Hwy

(Advs. B.RamakrishnaBhat&ChethanaKrishna.B)

2. Volkswagen Service Centre (Kannur),

Phoenix cars India Pvt Ltd,: Opposite Parties

Bye- Pass, Near Nadal,

Chala, Kerala – 670672

3. Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt Ltd (Head Office),
4.  

Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala,

Andheri East, Mumbai,

Maharashtra- 400099

(Advs. Azeem Mohammed & Soniya. S)

ORDER

SRI.KRISHNAN.K     :PRESIDENT

          The case of the Complainant is that his vehicle Polo car KL-14 S 3564 purchased in 2016 January, showed problems while driving.  Its ABC system showed warning lights in the screen.  The vibration in cluch pad, gear signal in screen changed without any manual shifts in gear lever.  The problem resolved, but after five months warning lights started glowing.  The Opposite Party’s Mangalore Service Centre informed to bring vehicle and problem rectified.  During March 2020 engine got heated, suddenly smoke came.  Took the vehicle to workshop.  They found normal water instead of coolant to the engine system.  Again engine heating issue started, sent vehicle to show room.  They saught four days to resolve issue.  Demanded Rs.1.8 lakh, 24 days taken to solve the problem.  Car produced unwanted sound on travelling 300km.  The complainant purchased the vehicle with 4 year warranty, problem not solved car is not in use until verdict of consumer case, claimed compensation and cost of litigation.

          The Opposite Party No.1 filed written version denying allegations.  Further claim is barred by limitation.  Engine is cleaned, replaced, seized bearings, invoiced for Rs.15,436/- paid and there no deficiency in service and complaint is to be dismissed.

          The Opposite Party No.2 filed its written version.  Since, no relief is claimed against Opposite Party No.2 complaint is to be dismissed.

The Opposite Party No.3 filed its written version.  Warranty policy is produced, valid only for five years.  Job card dated 17/09/2020 and 17/10/2020 is produced.  Vehicle covered distance of 84,128, km which shows its extensive use.  If and when there is any problem it will be solved on repairing.  If Complainant is keeping vehicle idle for no reason company is not liable and complaint may be dismissed.

          The complainant filed chief affidavit and was cross examined Ext.A1 marked subject to proof and expert report as Ext.C1.

          On the basis of rival claims following points arise for consideration in the case.

1. Whether there is an manufacturing defects to the vehicle?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service of the Opposite Party?
3. Whether complainant is entitled for compensation, if so for what reliefs?

All points are discussed together.

          The Ext.C1 report shows that the expert inspected the vehicle on 15/11/2021 at 2PM.  The report shows vehicle not put in use for some time hence, battery was down thus could not start the vehicle.  The Complainant stated engine smoke when vehicle is started and this may be due to improper service.  Advised complainant to recharge/ replace battery.  Again Inspected the vehicle on 20/11/2021 but engine did not started.  He did not see any kind of engine problem as claimed by the complainant.  The Complainant filed objections to the report but without any specific details.

          The Complainant adduced evidence of himself being PW1 and PW2.  PW2 deposed that he does not know how long the Complainant using the vehicle.  No evidence to show he is the driver under complainant.  PW1 Himself admit that vehicle is covered a distance of 84,000 kms.  If really vehicle is not taken to workshop/ authorized dealer for repair owner cannot expect any service in time.  For deliberated keeping vehicle idle without any use, not taking for repair in time, blaming dealer or manufacturer for deficiency in service or defect will not serve any purpose.  Here is a case the Complainant voluntarily on his own risk, keeps the vehicle in idle which automatically get damaged and cannot be put to use after a period of time.

          No evidence or proof of any deficiency in service, no evidence of manufacturing defect and the Complainant refuses to take the vehicle to the dealer for no reason.  If vehicle had manufacturing defects it should have been detected soon after purchase and the Complainant could not have driven over 84,000 Kms with a defective car.  Further, defects pointed out by the Complainant repaired every time to his satisfaction.  The Complainant also failed to prove any evidence to prove that vehicle had manufacturing defects even after inspection by expert.

          Opinion of an expert body in such cases would be an essential thing.  The manufacturing defect is much more than an ordinary defect which can be cured by replacing the defective part.  Manufacturing defect is fundamental basis defect which creeps while manufacturing machinery.  To prove such a defect opinion of an export is necessary which is not proved in the present case.

          The Complainant is not able to satisfactorily prove his case of the car suffering from inherent manufacturing defect.  Merely because the car had been taken to the workshop of the dealer for complaints it will not by itself amount to manufacturing defect.

          The car was sold to the Complainant on January 2016 and the vehicle developed alleged problem / trouble after long period and now the vehicle had already run 84,000 km and this shows that the vehicle was in running condition and was used by the complainant on regular basis.  It also shows that there was no manufacturing defects for the car in question.  Had there been a manufacturing defect, the car could not have run for merely 4 years.  The defects in this car, as rightly contended by the Opposite Party were minor in nature and cannot be said to be in nature of manufacturing defect.  The Complainant not able to discharge its onus to prove the manufacturing defect.

          When manufacturing defects is alleged, the onus of proof has to be on the Complainant.  The Complainant produced, in support of his allegation of Manufacturing defect, report filed by the private agency with evidence of his driver.  But it is not a conclusive evidence. 

          Admittedly in the instant case, the complainant has failed to prove any reliable evidence to prove that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect by producing the evidence of an expert.

          The Commission holds that the Complainant is not entitled for any relief claimed in the case.

In the result complaint is dismissed.

     Sd/-                                                     Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

MEMBER                                              MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

Exhibit

A1: Inspection Report

C1: Expert Commission Report

Witness Cross examined

PW1:Mohammed Pareri

PW2: KalandarZainuddeen

      Sd/-                                                      Sd/-                                        Sd/-

MEMBER                                              MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                      Assistant Registrar

Ps/